Migration is part of English life

Communities large and small require a constant supply of labour if they are to be sustainable. Even ever-growing London needs not only the much-vaunted higher skilled workers who may grudgingly be allowed in from overseas to refresh the talent pool but also its hidden army of low-paid, less-qualified workers who oil the wheels of service, healthcare, cleaning and transport. As people migrate into the capital in search of economic betterment, the demand they create for accommodation drives up property prices, out of the reach of these workers who lived there before and need to live there still, creating a sort of ethnic cleansing of the unqualified. What is not so evident is the parallel to this picture being experienced in thousands of rural and coastal communities.

At the start of the 20^th century, there were some 1m agricultural workers populating the towns and villages of rural England. As these were deprived of their living by automation and changes in farming and fishing practices, many left the country for industrial employment, denuding their former communities. Smaller, less influential populations were further deprived of transport links, and public services.  In recent decades, city-wards migration has been replaced to some extent by a reverse flow, as members of the new, affluent, urban middle class themselves experience the effects of property inflation. These have been two-fold: they too have been squeezed to pay for their homes; but they have been able to take profits by relocating and sometimes starting businesses in more attractive, often rural or seaside, environments, with lower costs and better quality of life. For such incomers, lack of public services may be of less importance than to long-term residents, being typically more mobile and able to pay for services privately. But life-style businesses in rural towns have limited growth, employment and wages. As more of the static number of available houses are acquired by the wealthy incomers, fewer are available or affordable to the less skilled, lower paid inhabitants of these communities. The younger generation is forced away from the countryside to find employment, leaving villages as micro versions of London: communities of the affluent with no local supply of unskilled labour, to lift the seasonal crops, to care for the ageing, to drive the non-existent buses. Is it any wonder that there is demand for workers from overseas who are prepared to tolerate multi-occupation housing and unsocial hours?

Ministers make the assumption that the public will accept skilled foreign workers into the country, because they are presumably nice middle-class people and relatively few in number. The reality is that in London and in leafy and seaside towns, there is still a need for lower-paid, less qualified workers to keep services going; but they are unable to live there , thanks to the inflationary effect of ignoring house-building for so long. In a market economy, only higher supply will mollify price inflation. If villages are to remain multi-generational or evolve into retirement communities, they will need not only a supply of labour but a supply of housing which can be afforded by first-time buyers, young families and lower-paid workers; and effective transport services to connect them to the services they need for health, education and employment. Until then, we need to think carefully about our  attitudes towards migrants and which ones we really need in our communities. Too may affluent house-buyers is no solution.

A vote for a Labour MEP is a vote for One Nation

Labour's determined focus on target General Election marginals is understandable. We must win in Hastings, Brighton Kemptown and other winnable seats if we are to get rid of this frightful government. Why voters should turn out in other instances may seem less obvious. Take a constituency like Wealden, for example. One of the safest of safe Tory seats, Labour has just 200 members and absolutely no chance of winning even a County Council seat any time soon. But what about those 200 Labour members and the perhaps 10% of voters who emulate them at election time? Some of us are passionate Labour supporters. What are we supposed to do with our energies, our ideas and our votes?

Around the country there are many constituencies like Wealden, mostly rural or coastal, where Labour supporters exist in minorities, marginalised from national polity. Some say "Go and help in your nearest marginal". Some do. But this is not always feasible. Rural life is quite isolating. Public transport is often non-existent; and running a car expensive; and canvassing does not suit everyone. And why should we ignore the needs of our own communities in favour of somewhere with which we have no connection? Rural and seaside areas have particular issues of deprivation which, electoral priority or not, need to be taken into account by policy makers. "One Nation" must mean all communities matter, not just key metropolitan marginals. It is for this reason that Labour Coast and Country [@LabourCC] has been set up, to enable Labour people living in Tory seats to connect with one another, across constituency boundaries, to share our common needs, feel less isolated and create critical mass to influence policy.

But we still have enthusiastic Labour supporters largely ignored by the Party; and communities outside the focus of policy, both with insufficient voice. Neither can elect representatives who can channel our needs. Or can we?

In May, the country will be invited to go to the polls to elect MEPs. Turnout will be low. Focus will be on UKIP's fate rather than Labour's. Between European elections we hear almost nothing about the work of the European Parliament or our representatives there. Each of these represents a huge geographical area, such that their visibility in any community is minimal and their names are unknown to most voters. So why should we engage in this election? Apart from whatever they actually achieve on our behalf, for rural Labour supporters voting for MEPs is the one chance we have of actually electing representatives of our own Party. Let us actively support those who genuinely support the rural agenda.

Why do we accept the language of success for high inflation?

The Cabinet, the City, the construction sector are all at pains to celebrate the rise in property prices as representing "recovery" as London and the South-East housing sales prosper. Double digit percentage house price rises are hailed as evidence of good news for the economy.

But hold on - let us explore the reality here. Is not the real truth that the South-East is experiencing inflation, at a level which in any other sector would be regarded as near disastrous and which would lead to Tories clamouring for wage cuts for lower paid workers?

Then there is the Princess Royal adding her two pennyworth, using her enormous insight into the needs of rural people to reject the building of new towns in favour of infilling villages and market towns whose transport and schools infrastructure are already inadequate; where there are few jobs; and house prices and rents are uncontrolled.

People in rural areas of the South-East are infected by the London bubble as the capital's real estate is mopped up by non-resident rich, leading those whose work is needed to buy in an ever-widening radius just for affordability. Such jobs as there may be in the areas affected are increasingly out of reach of workers forced themselves to move away to lower-cost towns, from where travel is rarely easy.

Rural idyll or rustic isolation

The lanes and woods of this rural constituency paint a picture of tranquil beauty and a high quality of life. For many this is exactly what makes living here so attractive. In fact the tranquillity disguises what is a hive of activity. Quite apart from the obvious roots of a rural economy - agriculture; horsiculture; hospitality - behind many a hedge lurks energetic enterprise quite unexpected in these surroundings. Within walking distance of my home are a pie factory,  a soap manufacturer exporting all over the World; in Internet retailer and a state-of-the-art print works, let alone our local brewer, jeweller and artists.

But even in such an enterprising culture there are few jobs and accessing workplaces can be convoluted and expensive where public transport is scarce. Many of those wishing or needing (for family or economic reasons, for example) to remain here seek to find a living through self-employment. These will no doubt be celebrated by current political spinners as evidence of a dynamic economy, contributors to record numbers of start-ups and sole traders. But let us look deeper beneath our green canopy:

Self-employment through inability to find or access work may be very different to entrepreneurship. Anyone forced into looking for piecework may be ill-equipped to handle the running of even a sole trader-ship. This requires not just a skill to sell but the skill of selling. It demands equipping one's business to compete with all the others in the same trade who will not let go lightly of any potential business; and to avoid being taken advantage of by unscrupulous clients. It requires rigorous understanding and management of cash-flow, whilst often bringing in far less income than is needed. How many coming out of employed status or unemployment are really equipped to deal with these alien functions; and where can they access such skills in scantily populated rural areas?

Hidden in this rural idyll are people facing deprivation, isolation and lack of hope, without the means to overcome these. The Tory Shires and Home Counties may be the playgrounds of the wealthy and comfortably off but they are others' homes too, who need the means to be seen, helped and represented.

Tom Serpell

Cameron is the great divider

Britain is increasingly divided under this Government. Quite apart from the potential departure of Scotland, which is not of his making, Cameron is presiding over a worsening North:South (or more precisely South-East vs the Rest) divide and record inequality, as his plutocratic allies line their pockets at the expense of the vast majority. Consider, though, another divide: that between urban and rural economies. As public services, which have been the major source of jobs, are withdrawn to a starved rump; and "infrastructure investment" means glamour projects handed to yet more party-funding mates, those who live in out-of-sight areas are ignored.
For rural families the journey to work or school can be lengthy, complex and costly. Shops, banks and the library (if there is one still) are not round the well-lit street corner. Affordable housing has not been built for years and house-prices and rents are soaring, straining further squeezed household budgets. We now learn that poverty demonstrably inhibits learning and even access to a computer, which is today a sine qua non for students. Superfast broadband comes last to rural areas which need them all the more because of the dearth of other means to access affordable sources of goods and services.
Many rural constituencies are safe Tory seats needing no special attention to sustain allegiance. New houses must not be allowed to spoil the view from the Manor house, so rural poor are faced with having to leave their roots in favour of grotty urban estates.
Labour may have few chances to win seats in rural England but its values are just as needed as in populous towns and cities. We must find ways of joining isolated Labour voices into one loud one so that our issues are understood and we too are part of our One Nation, even without electoral propsects.